User talk:RoySmith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST[edit]

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for:

This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

TFA[edit]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Dorothy Olsen, "about Dorothy Olsen, who flew military planes during World War II as a civilian member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots, ferrying newly built fighters and bombers from their factories where they were built to their embarkation points to Europe or Russia."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Hinterdobler is on the Main page today, together with an opera that reviewers deemed not interesting and too obscure for our general readers. The soprano thought differently, - listen and see. - Also on the Main page: a TFA by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-19[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-20[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024[edit]

Notelist[edit]

I couldn't help but notice your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war regarding multiple references. What is your opinion of the notelist currently at Piri#Notes? I plan on renominating that article for FA when I have six GAs.--Launchballer 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, interesting? I don't think I've ever seen anybody do it that way before. It certainly addresses the specific issue I raised about knowing which reference to look at for which piece of information. As for whether the folks at WP:FAC will like it, I don't know; I've found that I'm often a poor predictor of what the FAC-osphere likes and doesn't like. My suggestion is to ask at WT:FAC. Or maybe @Gog the Mild might be willing to offer an opinion. RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would just stick the reference next to the bit it cites, but that violates WP:REFPUNCT. I'll see if Gog the Mild responds here and if not I'll try at the talk page.--Launchballer 16:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I have been away. Personally I find the Piri approach irritating and unnecessary, which is not to say that whoever ends up source reviewing at FAC would oppose on the basis of it. What is wrong with the usual approach? Ie instead of note 1 have three separate cites, each in the appropriate place; as LB says. I fail to see how this violates WP:REFPUNC. (Which does not prohibit citing if there is no punctuation nearby, only placing the cite immediately before punctuation if any happens to be where the cite needs to be.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REFPUNCT (or CITEPUNCT) was raised as a concern at the first review, which (as you can probably tell) I remedied kicking and screaming. I think this could benefit from a wider hearing just in case I do get a reviewer bellyaching one way or another, but I need longer to form my argument.--Launchballer 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking about WP:Featured article candidates/Piri/archive1#BennyOnTheLoose? I think @BennyOnTheLoose misinterpreted MOS:CITEPUNCT. The point of Refs are placed after adjacent punctuation is "If there's adjacent punctuation, put the ref after it", not "refs must only be placed adjacent to punctuation. Benny wrote "it's really good for verifiability right now, but not so good for readability". IMO, verifiability is king and trumps all other concerns. If making it look prettier impacts verifiability, you're emphasizing the wrong thing.
As far as MOS:SEAOFBLUE forbids adjacent links of any kind, even ref tags, I think that's silly. The point of SEAOFBLUE is to make it obvious that there's multiple links. Oyster bar is visually identical to Oyster bar, and that's what we are trying to prevent. But this [1][2] is clearly two different links; the punctuation makes it obvious.

References

  1. ^ McGee, David. "King Street Oyster Bar". King Street Oyster Bar. Retrieved 22 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Grand Central Oyster Bar - New York, NY on OpenTable". OpenTable. Retrieved 22 May 2024.

RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting and learning. I'd add - you don't have to do everything a reviewer suggests. I certainly don't. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-21[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]